W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2000

Re: A triple is not unique.

From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:17:59 +0000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001120181508.00e21600@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Seth,

I think that not only does RDF not have any concept of consistency, but 
also that it has no concept of truth or falsehood.  Therefore, I don'e 
think we can ever get a ruling on what triples mean, just that they exist 
(or not) in some model.  The relationship between this model and any 
perceived reality is a matter for interpretation.

#g
--

At 07:38 AM 11/20/00 -0800, Seth Russell wrote:
[...]
>Now you might call me silly .. cause everything i would assert of ~Seth~ 
>would have
>the same semantics as what i assert of Sub1.  But does it?  What if you 
>tell your
>system:
>
>[You] --kill-->[~Seth~]
>
>Woops!   ... don't read that into your system!
>
>I think we need to get a ruling on what triples themselves mean according 
>to the M&S
>bible before we can tackle what their reifications mean.
>
>Seth Russell

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 12:46:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:46 GMT